So you dont know what we were discussing when you initially responded to my post?

We were discussing whether or not there is a statement on an application for a business license that the applicant agreed to follow all PA laws. CJ said there was. I said there is no statement. Bodeca said there was. I provided the application.

You responded with try it and find out, inferring that you agree with them and that there is a statement on a business license application that one agrees to comply with all PA laws.

So…show me. Show me the statement on my business application that I agreed to comply with all pa laws.

Again, no one is arguing that one must comply with all laws in what ever jurisdiction they reside in. The argument is whether the statement is on the business license application or not.

I hope that cleared it up for you,

So sorry, it did not. You misunderstood me, and perhaps the others. I tried my best to make it clear that I DONT know what language appears on a VA business application. My point was and is that: even if specific laws are not referenced; even if a general “I agree to abide by all applicable laws” statement does not appear on the form; there is an IMPLICIT agreement when you undertake ANY activity regulated by the state that you will abide by the laws APPLYING to that activity. I don’t recall that my CA driver’s license exam requires me to attest by my signature that I will obey all traffic laws, but if not, I’m certain that the driver’s handbook informs me that acceptance of the license is an implicit agreement to be responsible for knowing and obeying those laws. I think the others were making similar points, but I won’t speak for them.

I could be wrong about VA. That said, I think it would probably be foolish to accept my tongue-in-cheek challenge.

Were I a CPA faced with the same question, I would do the taxes. In my opinion, it’s not the prudent hill to die on.

I fully understand the principle being used. It’s more applicable (in my opinion) when it comes to services celebrating the marriage itself. Under that principle, it’s a celebration of something seen as a sin under that principle.

But I understand the principle, and I don’t hold it against the CPA for extending it as far as she is.

There is no implicit agreement. Where do you guys come up with this stuff? If there was an implicit agreement, and one violated the law, there would be two distinct charges. One for violating the law and one for falsifying the contract / application form. All a business license is, is a way for the govt, being local, city, state or fed, to collect taxes. That is it. It is nothing more than that.

Everyone still must obey all laws, and will be punished if they dont obey them, but the business license has nothing to do with that.

Yeah! How dare people call someone an ***hole for being an ***hole! They’re clearly the real ***holes!

But if I were to express the same about those who say what you said, I’d eat a time-out here. Yet I submit it would be a fair thing for me to say. You decry the CPA’s choice, and I decry what I see as hate in your reply. The CPA made a choice, and you made a choice. You’re essentially saying that only the choices YOU decry are worth hating.

Why we still doing this? This is a capitalist country, gay folks/gay couples spend money like everyone else. This person willing to miss out on putting money in his pockets to increase his bottom-line all over someone else’s lifestyle. I hope he doesn’t get another customer. SMDH

Were I a CPA faced with the same question, I would do the taxes. In my opinion, it’s not the prudent hill to die on.

I fully understand the principle being used. It’s more applicable (in my opinion) when it comes to services celebrating the marriage itself. Under that principle, it’s a celebration of something seen as a sin under that principle.

But I understand the principle, and I don’t hold it against the CPA for extending it as far as she is.

Yeah! How dare people call someone an ***hole for being an ***hole! They’re clearly the real ***holes!

But if I were to express the same about those who say what you said, I’d eat a time-out here. Yet I submit it would be a fair thing for me to say. You decry the CPA’s choice, and I decry what I see as hate in your reply. The CPA made a choice, and you made a choice. You’re essentially saying that only the choices YOU decry are worth hating.

Hate is not a one-sided issue.

He made a choice all right - a choice to be an ***hole.

Disapproving gay marriage does not give you the right to refuse service to gay people, especially when the job you’re doing has nothing to do the gayness of those involved.

Again, this is exactly, 100% the same as bigoted racists refusing service to black people under Jim Crow. It was wrong then and it being done against gay people doesn’t somehow make it ok just because a mainstream religion doesn’t approve of them. Mainstream southern christianity didn’t approve of black people either. Refusing service because someone is gay makes them an ***hole and I will absolutely call them as such.

So your theory is that I shouldn’t call someone an ***hole if they act like an ***hole because that’s somehow “hating the person”? Do you hold any Conservatives here up to these lofty standards? Because I have a thread on a gay guy who faked a hate crime for you to look at, as well as about 10,000 threads on Alexandria Ocasio-cortez.

So your theory is that I shouldn’t call someone an ***hole if they act like an ***hole because that’s somehow “hating the person”?

It’s your OPINION that the CPA acts like an ■■■■■■■■ And based on that opinion you label her an ■■■■■■■■ Your opinion doesn’t get to define that, except as an exercise of tossing hate. Others don’t share your opinion. Some might even cheer her actions on the same principles she exercises. Are they ■■■■■■■■ too?

It’s my opinion that calling someone an ■■■■■■■ is also acting like an ■■■■■■■. But to me, someone acting like an ■■■■■■■ does not make the person himself an ■■■■■■■.

When someone resorts to labeling another an ■■■■■■■■ that’s casting hate, no less so than the behavior that (in your opinion) casts hate.

This culture seems to have lost the ability to disagree without hating the other side.

So your theory is that I shouldn’t call someone an ***hole if they act like an ***hole because that’s somehow “hating the person”?

It’s your OPINION that the CPA acts like an ■■■■■■■■ And based on that opinion you label her an ■■■■■■■■ Your opinion doesn’t get to define that, except as an exercise of tossing hate. Others don’t share your opinion. Some might even cheer her actions on the same principles she exercises. Are they ■■■■■■■■ too?

It’s my opinion that calling someone an ■■■■■■■ is also acting like an ■■■■■■■. But to me, someone acting like an ■■■■■■■ does not make the person himself an ■■■■■■■.

When someone resorts to labeling another an ■■■■■■■■ that’s casting hate, no less so than the behavior that (in your opinion) casts hate.

This culture seems to have lost the ability to disagree without hating the other side.

Refusing to do business with someone because of their race, sex religion or orientation makes someone an ***hole. How would you feel if someone said they refused to serve you because you were a Christian? I highly suspect it wouldn’t be by twisting yourself in knots trying to equivocate about how they’re the real victims. You’d, very rightly, decide he was an ***hole.